Slashdot Mirror
Corbis, DMCA, And John Kerry Photos
Phronesis writes "Photo District News is running a story reporting that three historic photos of John Kerry from the early 1970s, including the one used for the Jane Fonda forgery, were pirated from Corbis. The photographers who own the copyright on the photos are asking Corbis to use its fancy watermarking technology to find the culprit. Corbis hopes either to track the responsible people down using watermarks, or to invoke DMCA if the watermarks were removed."
I think we're going to see more of this in the future. Remember the famous shark in san fran harbor pic?
Best Community for Gaming and Gadgets!
Yeah so this is the problem with folks who don't ask questions. A quick examination of the forged image reveals differing light angles. However, other than that, the forgery (based upon an interpretation of the low resolution image from the link) is pretty decent. The cut lines are well concealed, and the brightness has been rather nicely matched. Of course the highlights in her hair have been darkened to match the background of trees and such, but here is(are) my question(s)..... 1) Who would be stupid enough to obtain a copyrighted image in a forgery attempt? 2) Unless this is an attempt by a right wing organization to discredit Kerry, why waste your time? Especially when you are lying?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
"Pardon me. Would the person responsible for forging the photos, removing the watermarks from the source images, and distributing a libellous claim please come to the Principal's office? Thank you."
Corbis hopes either to track the responsible people down using watermarks, or to invoke DMCA if the watermarks were removed.
If the watermarks were removed, the DMCA won't be able to help much, they'll have a hard time figuring out who did the forgery...
A bad law used in a decent way is still a bad law; the ends do not justify the means...
The unofficial
...infringers - don't they mean thieves? Oh wait, this isn't an RIAA related article.
/. please explain some of these difficult to understand terms: I mean I know what GIMP, DMCA, MP3, PARC, DSL, DRM, DVD and NSA mean, but who's this John Kerry and this Jane Fonda?
John.
Does anyone know if an open-source (cheap) watermark solution exists?
I like to take photos and post them on my site, but I would like to also have them watermarked in case someone takes the photo and starts making money of it.
I looked into the one that comes with Adobe products, but it was way to expensive. Something like $75 for 10 photos.
Just wondering what options are avalible...
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
And as for contrasting "rich people" with Mr. Kerry, that's a very interesting spin you have chosen.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
The other part of the DMCA says stripping copyright information or other identifying marks from a copyrighted work in an attempt to avoid proper attribution is also a violation.
It's in that part none of us got really upset about because most of us (even those who "pirate" regularly) still think the creator should get credit (just not control).
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Sorry to rain on your parade...
So much for our clean 2004 election - as if any of us thought it would actually happen anyway.
Even if the candidates promise to keep things clean, candidates can't control their supporters. And, we've seen that even though there are tight regulations on what political groups can put out in traditional paid media, it seems like the campaign reform laws have completely overlooked the Internet, and people have discovered that if you put something contraversial on the Internet, it'll get discussed on TV for free. Even the infamous "blocked by CBS" MoveOn.org Super Bowl spot, which complied with all of the campaign law rules, got more free runs on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News during discussions of it than paid ones.
So, even if both candidates shake hands and promise zero negativity from their own people, there will be people on both sides of the ball who they can't stop that'll go negative in their name anyway. The media's going to have its work cut out trying to verify claims made by such groups this year...
Sec. 1202. Integrity of copyright management information
. . . (b) REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION- No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law--
(1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information,
(2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information knowing that the copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law, or
(3) distribute, import for distribution, or publicly perform works, copies of works, or phonorecords, knowing that copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law,
knowing, or, with respect to civil remedies under section 1203, having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under this title.
In other words "Thou shalt not do anything we don't like."
I think you need to read Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 U.S. 569 (1994).
Parody is a defense against copyright infringement, however, the infringing work must qualify as a parody.
That would seem ironic, considering it's apparent origins:
From the Guardian
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
And if you RTFA (I know, this is Slashdot) it's Corbis going after them for copyright violations, not Kerry.
Real
Fake
The real photo is not a picture of them together. It is a picture of them in the same place at the same time. Yes, there's a difference--Kerry is basically background in that picture; he's not talking to Hanoi Jane, he's not looking at her, nothing.
I attended a Republican convention once. One of the many speakers was Pat Robertson. By your logic, I therefore believe everything that Pat Robertson believes. Pete DuPont spoke at the same rally. By your logic, Pete DuPont and Pat Robertson therefore have no differences.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1075317/p osts
(Scroll down to post 47.) The original link was at:
http://members.aol.com/registered/private/freep/ke rryfonda.jpg
though it's gone now. "Registered" admits elsewhere on the board to creating the photo.
You are not required to vote in the Senate, but I checked and Kerry did vote yea .
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
No. And clearly, neither do you. Her current last name, which she got from her first husband, is Heinz.
I have no idea what her maiden name was.
www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp
John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163.6 million
Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111 million
John Rockefeller, D-West Virginia: $81.6 million
Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71 million
Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26.4 million
list
so much for the 'rich republicans'
more
According to a recent article on cnn.com, there are 40 millionaires in the U.S. Senate, according to their own financial statements.
Of these, the 5 richest are Democrats. Of the dozen richest, 10 are Democrats and 2 are Republicans. The richest (Democrat) senator is worth more than 6 times as much as the richest Republican senator.
Finally, since the remaining 60 senators must be worth less than $1M each, we can compute that the 3 richest senators (all Democrat) are worth more the the rest of the Senate combined!
Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
It's a lot different then the action movies you've grown up on. In fact, when I was serving in Somalia, the situation was closer to "Blackhawk Down" than "Stripes".
---Well that's nice. I was serving in SWA/Kuwait a few years prior to your stint. When Bush Sr. realized that going into Baghdad would result in a dangerous power vacuum that could lead to a fundamentalist Islamic state. Not to mention civlian casualties and general chaos.
I'm pro-military. I'm vehemently against the current debacle launched in Iraq. And I can definitely see where a Vietnam vet coming home just might have something to say about how pointless that war was.
So again there, Mr. Somalia: What makes you think one cannot simultaneously be pro-military and yet still protest against a war?
I don't recall the argument being that Republicans were rich. It was that they are the tools of the rich...
Besides, 9 out of 10 people know you can use statistics to prove anything!
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Suppose you were on the scene at the My Lai massacre, when American troops were murdering civilians. Would it be treason to urge them to stop? No. Would it be treason to use force to try to stop them? Maybe. Would it be wrong? Certainly not. Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson ordered his crew chief to "open up on the Americans" if they fired on Vietnamese civilians he was shielding with his helicopter.
If you view the Vietnam War as one big massacre, you have a moral obligation to do what you can to stop it. That view is one reasonable people could hold. The U.S. dropped more tonnage of bombs on agricultural N. Vietnam than on Nazi Germany and Japan. The B52 crews Hanoi Jane was hoping would be shot down were following lawful orders and yet perpetrating massacres. It's a problem.
I have a lot of respect for the troops. I have no respect for the current CIC. If my own brother were shooting civilians, I'd stop him if I had the chance. Would you stand by just because of the uniform?
I don't recall the argument being that Republicans were rich. It was that they are the tools of the rich...
So basically you're saying that Republicans are the tools of the Democrats?
Brain... hurting! Must... vote... Libertarian!!
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know